Tag Archives: iraq

Sometimes in our everyday lives
we tend to forget what’s going on
elsewhere in the world and that the brave
men and women of the service are
just like you and I. They have family
and friends back home who love them
very much and are praying
for their safe return.

Media’s dark cloud a danger

Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He’d been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.

News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president’s premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives — a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.

The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.

These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: “Sir, this is worth doing.” No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.

But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I’m afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with “the rest of the story,” the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.

During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.

Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical “can do” attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.

Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.

We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I’m afraid it is killing our troops.

-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Fred Kaplan wrote a piece in Slate Magazine titled, “Was Bush Lying About WMD?” He seems reasonable enough at the outset, given that he doesn’t infer President Bush is a greedy, insensitive, rich, frat-boy, bent on WW III, who has no right to the Oval Office. (At least, not in this article.) But he does jump to some extreme conclusions that are just as baseless.

For the record, I do not think President Bush lied about WMD or anything else for that matter. To believe that, one would have to also believe that President Bush was clever enough to fool Tony Blair, the US Congress, and many others who had access to their own sources of intelligence. One would have to believe that all the President’s advisors, (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, The JCS, etc) were part of the plot also.

But, back to Kaplan’s piece:

The intro: We may never know if Saddam Hussein really had weapons of mass destruction during the final months or years before his ouster . . .

The premise: the Bush administration claimed he [Saddam Hussein] did [have WMD] with a degree of certainty far exceeding that of U.S. intelligence reports.

Accusations:

1) . . .Pentagon officials who made these claims so fiercely probably weren’t lying. Clearly, they had formed their conclusions first, then went scrounging for the evidence.
2) Clearly, they [the Pentagon officials] stretched the evidence they found right up to, and in some cases beyond, the logical limits.
3) They [Rumsfeld, et al] probably also believed that the analysts in the CIA and DIA, who were uncertain or skeptical about the matter, just didn’t, or didn’t want to, look hard enough.

The remainder of Kaplan’s article is a discussion between the parallels of the ‘cold war missile gap’ debate of the 1950’s and Iraq’s WMD.

Kaplan’s account of the missile gap debate may be correct or not. I’m not enough of an historian to say. But for the sake of this argument, let’s assume everything he says about it is true. Mr. Kaplan’s accusation is: “Clearly, Pentagon officials formed their conclusion first“, and, “Clearly, they stretched the evidence . . .” . He has no evidence that is so, whatsoever. His only logic (if you wish to call it that) is the similarity of the current WMD debate to the missile gap debate of 40 years ago. That would be like Marsha Clark claiming OJ guilty of murder because his case was so similar to the Sam Shephard or Lizy Borden cases.

Why did Kaplan stop there? I can see parallels between the current situation and the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898, which lead to the Spanish-American War. There is evidence now that the explosion onboard the ship was an accident and not an act of sabotage. Did President McKinley and Sec. of the Navy, Roosevelt mislead America and the Congress in order to steal the rightful possessions of Spain? Did big sugar lust after Cuba’s sugar cane production? Could be! But we can’t draw that conclusion.

Mr. Kaplan references another article in Slate Magazine he authored last October, titled, The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency. In it, he says Rumsfeld, et al, maliciously made a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda terrorists as a case for war. His reference for that article was yet another piece written in the New York Times. Now, in his latest article, he says the same covert ‘intelligence agency’ was actually looking for evidence of WMD because WMD are an easier sell. Mr. Kaplan should make it clear. Did Rumsfeld mislead us about WMD or a terrorist connection? Was Mr. Kaplan wrong then, or is he wrong now?

As I said at the beginning of this article, I don’t know if President Bush lied or not, but I don’t think so. I do feel strongly, however, that if you call or infer someone a liar (especially the President) you better have some very strong evidence. In Mr. Kaplan’s case, it isn’t there, strong or otherwise. He states his own conclusion and goes back forty years to draw parallels to the missile gap debate of the 1950’s. Using words like “clearly” is no substitute for fact.

The Bush Administration made its case at the United Nations when Sec. Powell laid out the Administration’s evidence. Dr. Condoleezza Rice followed with her own analysis. Were Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice lying too, or did ‘Dumya’ fool them, as he supposedly fooled Senators Kerry, Byrd, and Clinton? That’s pretty impressive for someone who can’t even speak proper English, can’t think for himself, and has the lowest IQ of all modern presidents.

If one wants to prove the Bush Administration lied, one needs to start with the statements of evidence as presented. Have you seen anyone dissect that evidence to prove how it was falsified or fabricated? Did anyone track down any of the Iraqis who were recorded discussing WMD and show them to be misquoted? Has anyone gone to the sites shown in the satellite imagery to see if they were associated with WMD?

Bush detractors will not focus on the Administration’s evidence because it is credible, although not final. US intelligence did connect the dots. It made the case that there were programs of WMD ongoing or easily resurrected, even if we cannot find the end products now. Further, the anti-war left fails to make any counter argument that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD nor a terrorist connection. Their entire argument is WMD cannot be found; ergo . . . they never existed. Saddam knew that WMD were the reason for allied military action. It makes no sense whatsoever that he would leave a smoking gun for us stumble across. It does makes sense that he would either ship them to a safe haven or destroy them to cover his crimes and lies.

From the evidence presented and the arguments produced so far, Fred Kaplan and the liberal left at Slate Magazine are ‘clearly‘ jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Protestors have an absolute right to speak their mind. So let’s listen to what they say.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees us the right to assemble peacefully.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Over this past Presidents’ Day Holiday the anti-war movement made their opinions known. To their credit, most demonstrators conducted themselves peacefully. Violence was the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, let’s not dismiss their position out of hand, but rather listen to their points. Surfing around the Internet, one find various anti-war pages. Here’s what some of them say:

Isn’t Hussein Crazy?
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is certainly no sweetheart. He has used chemical weapons against his own people. He started and fought a long, brutal war with Iran, before invading Kuwait and prompting the U.S.-led Persian Gulf War of 1991. But Hussein’s actions are on par with those of other violent world leaders. Iraqi Crisis AntiWar Homepage

What Else is Going On?
Saddam Hussein is not the only world leader with weapons of mass destruction. There are plenty of countries with even more lethal nuclear weapons including the U.S., Russian, the Ukraine, China, France, Britain, South Africa, India, and Pakistan. Most notably, Israel has also undertaken a nuclear program and they certainly have a small arsenal with missiles capable of reaching Iraq. Iraqi Crisis AntiWar Homepage

Unjust, Immoral, and Illegitimate
We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do — we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. Not In Our Name

The Human Cost
Contrary to the growing perception around the world that Americans do not care about the lives and limbs of the Iraqi innocents, they do. It is Iraqis who will bear the greatest casualties in a US bombardment from the skies over Iraqi cities. The Real Cost of War

Poor Use of Scarce Funds
We believe that it is unconscionable to send young people in the U.S. armed forces into combat in an illegal war that serves only the interests of Big Oil. Instead of spending $200 billion of taxpayers’ money on another war in the Middle East, the funds should be used to create jobs and finance education, housing, heathcare and other vital human needs. Vote No War

That is not a complete list, but it is fairly representative of the current anti-war position. Essentially, we can sum up their opinion by with the following: Why shouldn’t Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction?; The war is a poor use of our scarce funds; The human cost is too high; And war is always immoral, unjust, and illegitimate.

OK, let’s talk.

Why shouldn’t Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? The United States recognizes that some people are dangerous. We have laws that deny convicted felons the right to possess a firearm. We even deny felons the right to vote.

Saddam Hussein is certainly in the same category as a dangerous felon. Not only is he dangerous, he has been found guilty of aggressive warfare by the United Nations. The ‘then’ majority leader, Tom Daschle, made that exact case on the Senate floor while debating the resolution for use of force last October. That is why the UN voted to require Saddam to disarm as part of the negotiated cease fire after he illegally invaded Kuwait.

Yes, there are other countries who are dangerous and have weapons of mass destruction, too. And when the UN votes to disarm them, we should also consider the use of force if the don’t comply. If the United Nations has changed its opinion regarding Iraq, and now feels that disarmament is not the right approach, they should meet and craft a new resolution to say so. But the one thing to not do is demand disarmament and then not enforce it.

Why risk the human cost? Use of force is always the most unpleasant, least desirable option. No one wants to see others hurt or killed. But it takes two hands to clap. Iraq is a member of the United Nations. It is also a signatory of various nonproliferation treaties regarding WMD. If it has a case to make for reconsideration of its previous agreements, it should voice them in the UN. Until then, Iraq can stop the violence by honoring its commitments under these agreements and voluntarily disarm.

And the financial cost? That argument follows closely with the human cost. Everyone would prefer to spend that money on almost anything other than a military intervention in Iraq. If we have no intention of enforcing the UN resolutions, then maybe we shouldn’t vote for them in the first place. For that matter, if the UN has no enforcement maybe the United States should not spend any money there at all. Currently, the United States funds roughly $4 billion (25 percent) of the UN budget. What do we get for that investment if we can’t trust the member nations to honor their own commitments? Four-billion dollars would buy a lot of health care and prescription insurance for our seniors.

Those are all counter-arguments to the anti-war position. But it is not enough to just be against war. To have credibility, you have to offer a viable alternative. This is the weakest part of the anti-war stance. It is what they do not say that is the most damning. How do we really ensure Iraq will stop developing WMD? Inspections? Not likely! In dealing with Iraq, inspections have proven completely ineffective for two reasons. Saddam Hussein avoids inspection in too many ways. Some we know (ie mobile labs) and some we don’t (Syria?). And as they progress, he constantly negotiates the inspectors into a position of less and less effectiveness. First they negotiate all of Hussein’s palaces are exempt. Then he negotiates the same exemptions for mosques, cemeteries, schools, and others.

The protestors’ demands were all one sided. There is no demand that Iraq cooperate. Protestors want the United States and the United Nations commit to not using force. If they do, it puts Iraq in a no-lose situation and rewards further cheating. If they can continue development they are not punished. They can only be caught and stopped. But there is no risk to try again, and again, and again until they are successful.

In all the demonstrations I saw, I did not see one demand (or even request) for Saddam to cooperate. No one asked the question why Iraq needs WMD. Is Iraq threatened by Al-Qaeda or maybe Iran? What is the human and financial cost to Iraqi citizens to maintain these WMD programs? It is completely unreasonable to demand the US and UN relent to maintain peace. As I said earlier, it takes two hands to clap.

If ignorance is bliss, then the Europeans must live in nirvana. I’m speaking of their outspoken criticism of US foreign policy toward Iraq. Both Germany and France have forgotten the bitter lessons of appeasement of the 1930’s. But before they were forced to appease a brutal dictator, they allowed him to grow fangs by not enforcing the disarmament imposed under the Treaty of Versailles. Germany, in a secret pact with Stalin, operated weapons research facilities in Russia. The agreement was to share the fruits of their labors with Russia in return for his silence. Hitler also violated the treaty by illegally expanding his army, navy, air force, and weapons arsenal. Only after it was too late did Europe finally come to its senses.

The outcome, of course, was WWII. When Hitler invaded Poland, the British finally had had enough. They fired Neville Chamberlan, voted in Winston Churchill, and began begging the United States for any assistance. The United States wasn’t completely without sin, though. Japan was running rampant in China and the strongest US response was to apply economic sanctions and position the US Pacific fleet in Hawaii from San Diego.

History shows clearly that many of our current international problems stem directly from the failed policies of European colonialism. Prior to and just after World War II, France and Great Britain administered the colonial governments of that the Middle East. It was their policies that lead to the domestic unrest and insurrection in such places as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Rhodesia, Kenya, and South Africa. It was French colonial rule in Viet Nam that antagonized the Vietnamese and spurred the growth of communist rebellion. When Egyptian President, Gamal Abdul Nassar, nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, France and Great Britain jointly invaded Egypt to try and retake it. Only after very strong international pressure did they finally withdraw.

The difference today is that America has taken note of those lessons while Europe has not. The criticism against American policy seems to hinge on the notion that America is pursuing war for self serving purposes, namely oil. This is no more valid than the accusation that America went to Afghanistan in order to build an oil pipeline. A quick bit of research will show that Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are keen to have American or European companies build such a pipeline but no one is interested (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sign Pipeline Deal).

Europe wants to travel the high road of peace at any price. The most pertinent reason for the Europe’s criticism, however, lies in their decline relative to America’s ascendance. The world currency is either gold or US dollars, not Francs or Pounds. Computer commands are in English not French. International air traffic controllers and airline pilots must be fluent in English not German. The United States sets the standard for human rights, scientific development, medical research, democracy, fair elections, personal freedoms, and global charity just to name a few. At the same time the French set the standard for arrogance, labor strikes, vacations, and anti-American demonstrations.

The European military is woefully inadequate to pose any serious deterrent to rogue nations. Europe could not prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans by Slobodan Milosevic. It took the commitment of the United States. The last I heard, Milosevic was still on trial at the Hague. Who knows if they will ever get around to convicting him. When Argentina invaded the Faulklands, Great Britain (remember, they used to rule the waves) did not have the ability to respond. They had to ask President Reagan to refuel their ships at see on the way to the fight.

My own sense is that we can take most of the European criticism with a grain of salt. It is noble to have a sense of compassion for potential innocent civilian casualties should we go to war. But they are suspiciously devoid of an equivalent outrage at actual American casualties on 9/11. And, might I say, those were not accidental casualties. They were targeted and executed by plan and specific purpose. The same can be said for the deaths in Bali, Kenya, Tanzania, Kobart Towers, the USS Cole, as well as others. It is a shame that hard feelings can cloud one’s judgment. But it is my conclusion, based on the above, that this is indeed the case with Europe. We should always consult with our allies. We must consider their situation before we act. But when the path is clear, we can’t be allowed to be swayed from the proper course of action. Saddam Hussein is an aggressive dictator with malintent for America. We must enforce his disarmament or be prepared to face the consequencies.

The U.S. Congress has a history of tough talk on Iraq but…

In 1991, the United States Senate voted (53-47) to allow the president to use military force to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Upon completion of that goal, the United Nations voted (UN Resolution 687) that as a condition of cessation of hostilities, Iraq must unconditionally:

declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents”.

agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”

agree to not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction.

not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

The history of Iraqi cooperation has been frustrating to the United Nations ever since. After Iraq ejected the UN inspectors, claiming they were spying, the Untied States Congress became concerned and passed two important pieces of legislation. The first, Public Law 105-238, (Finding the Government of Iraq in unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations) was passed and then signed by President Clinton on August 14, 1998. It declares:

that the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations. Urges the President to take appropriate action under U.S. law to bring Iraq into compliance with such obligations.

Further, seeing Saddam Hussein as an ongoing threat, the Senate passed the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998,” encouraging President Clinton to adopt a policy of “regime change” in Iraq.

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 – Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

After the attacks of Sept 11, Congress went further. Just one week after the event, Congress authorized President Bush to use, “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001“. This became public law 107-40.

One year later, President Bush, sensing the possibility of the need for use of force, asked Congress to use the US military if needed. As a result Congress passed and the President signed public law 107-243. This became law on October 16, 2002 and says in part:

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

And finally, The United Nations Security Council followed suit soon thereafter by unanimously approving “UN Resolution 1441”, by a vote of 15-0. Although resolution 1441 did not specifically sanction the use of military force, it did find that Iraq was and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991).

Today, the tone has changed dramatically. Despite previous legislation, Congressional Democrats, as well as some Republicans, have voiced concern over military action against Iraq. Last September, three Democrats traveled to Iraq to help prevent war between the United States and Iraq. Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., David Bonior, D-Mich., and James McDermott, D-Wash., described their mission as mainly humanitarian. In a letter to Bush Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar ( R-Ind.) wrote: “There is not consensus on many critical questions” about the use of force in Iraq.

Here are some more quotes about the evils of pursuing military action:

Al Gore – “After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, good will and support around the world,” Gore said in San Francisco. “We’ve squandered that, and in one year we’ve replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do.”

Ted Kennedy – “I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted.” “I continue to be convinced that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent, and it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security; the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea.”

John Kerry – Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. Indeed, for a time, the Administration’s unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America’s standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

Nancy Pelosi – “I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution. “I did not hear anything today that was different about [Hussein’s] capabilities, save a few ’embellishments’.”

Before 2000, we had a Congress that voted like hawks but a president who acted like a dove. After 2000, we have a Congress that debates like a flock of doves while the president acts like the hawk. What changed? The make-up of the Congress hasn’t changed dramatically. It is the Presidency that has changed hands. And with it, Congress’ will has completely reversed. It is almost as if Congress knew President Clinton wouldn’t use the military and therefore were free to be as bellicose as wanted. What a difference a presidential election can make!